January 29, 2008

We did, talking over it a lot of the time. How can we feel that a man who is President doesn't matter anymore? Somehow we do. At least when he's making a speech. He may yet do something that could make us change our well-settled opinions. But let's hope that nothing much happens in the next year. When things capable of transforming the reputation of a President happen, they're usually bad. So let's hope the battered old man drifts further into oblivion over the next year, and when the State of the Union comes around again we have the occasion to get all excited about the seemingly boundless potential of another human individual.

There are two competing traditions with regard to how the State of the Union can be delivered, and at risk of being called a gloomy gus, every time I watch one of them, I can't help but wonder if the practice followed by Presidents Jefferson through Wilson was the better model.

What struck me was how comfortable he seemed in his skin giving this speech in this setting. Early on he seemed like a kid wearing clothes too large for him. I thought he did well and he seemed to enjoy it.

I didnt watch the whole thing but did see the President leave at the end--he looked very upbeat to me, signing autographs and schmoozing. After eight years, he still has not become an orator and remains, IMO, one of the worst public speakers I have ever heard. And he has, apparently, galvanized the republican minority behind him and has effectively stymed the Democratic majority in congress. I only wish he hadn't caved on earmarks--but I somehow suspect, that was the price of galvanizing the republican minority.

Roger, do you mean "caved" on earmarks last night, or "caved" on earmarks during the time the GOP was running Congress? If the former, are you arguing that earmarks are a good thing that should not be dealt with as he (belatedly) promised?

I'm not Roger (really!) but I'm thinking the quid pro quo that Republicans in the Congress have with the President includes earmarks for Republican Congresscritters in exchange for toning down disagreement with a lame duck President.

The President says he'll veto an earmarked laden bill (aren't they all?). But push comes to shove, and he signs.

Simon: I think he "caved" in this respect: he could have issued the executive order to cover current earmarks. The EO is aimed at future earmarks. My preference as a taxpayer would be to slam the door on earmarks immediately, but in this case I will take the half loaf rather than the whole loaf. I am also totally disappointed in the congressional GOP who clearly don't get it.

If past lapses meant that a party can never again claim the mantle of X, then neither party could advocate much of anything. While that might be a good thing, it certainly is not what is going to happen.

Or perhaps you meant "can never credibly claim the mantle of..."

That both sides will claim all kinds of stuff that they haven't delivered again is as certain as death and taxes. And some of the people will even believe them.

The speech was incredibly inoffensive. It was designed to maximize the amount of applause by putting things in terms Democrats in the audience could (or rather had to) stand up for. The mad tyrant only made a cameo during the Iran and FISA segments.

It was also really poorly written. "Trust X and Empower them to do Y" ad nauseum. I was personally relieved that the people who made him sound like a visionary (like Gerson) have abandoned ship.

MM - One thinks of Joe Cannon, who as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee famously told a reporter: "you might think that my job is to make appropriations. It is not. It is to prevent their being made." That wisdom brought the GOP to power in 1994, and their failure to heed it led to their ejection, and to much of the present mess. As I've said before, comments passim, no meaningful change is going to come to Washington until voters start judging members of Congress by how little the member adds to the taxpayers' burden rather than how much of that tax burden is brought back to a particular district. Or at least, that holds unless some other structural check is placed on the inclination to do so - I've suggested one several times, but alas, 'tis not the spirit of the times.

Absent Congressional authorization, it's very, very unlikely that he can do so legally, unless it's to respond to an actual attack on the United States or to prevent an attack so imminent that Congressional approval can't reasonably be sought.

George Bush is 6 weeks older than Bill Clinton, 8 months older than Romney and 15 months older than Hillary Clinton. He's 4-1/2 years older than Althouse, who is about 2-1/2 years older than Edwards, just over 4-1/2 years older than Huckabee, and a little over 10-1/2 years older than Obama.

Now, if you wanna talk old, there's always Paul, born August 1935, and John McCain, a full year younger.

I thought it was a good final speech by someone who inspires either hatred or weariness in so many. He is not irrelevant, though; he is the center around which the others spin--ask the Dems why they haven't passed a single of their anti-war resolutions.

I don't think he has a romantic's view of his office, so in that sense I don't think he feels battered. He applied what he considers his core principles to problems that change in form but never in content. He has said that he feels joyous for the privilege of having served. Okay then. That's W.

I guess I'm at the stage (and have been for a while) where I really don't consider anyone close to old unless they're at least as old as my parents (who were in their early 20s when they had me). For me, that means only Paul and McCain qualify. And if it weren't for certain circumstances, I wouldn't even consider my parents old, in comparison to the ages of people with whom I interact almost every day.

Turns out that homeschooled kids actually do better on standardized tests and in college than the average public school kid.

Actually, the subset of homeschooled kids who choose to take the standardized tests do better on average, than public school kids, all of whom are required to take them. I wonder if teaching intellectual dishonesty is part of the typical homeschool curriculum.

I don't know about where you're at, but around here homeschooled children are required to take these standardized tests. The public school system is trying to have that changed because of their poor performance in comparison with both home schooled and private school children.

I don't know about where you're at, but around here homeschooled children are required to take these standardized tests.

I don't know where you're at, but my public school had college level courses in calculus, chemistry, biology, english, and physics. We also had 12 National Merit Scholars in my graduating class. How many homeschooled children go to college with any college level hard science or math background (or even believe in evolution)?

Here's a listing of state requiring homeschooled children to take which tests and when:http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/030802.htm.

I suspect that what homeschooled children learn is a function of what their parents think they should learn--I am sure there are some fundamentalist types who probably don't teach evolution; but I also suspect there are some atheistic types of parents that do teach evolution--and neither of those subjects preclude the teaching of calculus or other first year college types of courses that would normally be found in an advanced placement program at many public schools.

The homeschool movement postdates my children's school age. I wouldnt have had the time to devote to their homeschooling due to the nature of my job. I would have certainly welcomed the chance to homeschool them. Seems to me parental involvement is one important factor in a child's education, and homeschooling certainly appears to maximize parental involvement.

Secular homeschoolers tend to be more independent and less organized than Christian homeschoolers, but it would be unwise to assume they don't exist in the same numbers. The "big names" in the beginning of the movement are secular ones. Those pioneers pushing for radical education reform were tofu and nuts liberals, Freder.

They were school teachers and hippies who despaired at the assembly line model that was destroying the concept of education itself. The life of the mind. Creativity. The simple ability to *think*.

Those people still exist and have the same philosophical concerns. Christian homeschoolers overlap that sub-set of homeschoolers.

The ones who *don't* overlap that sub-set are the Christian school-at-homers who most certainly do produce TRADITIONALLY educated students who perform at traditional classroom activities very *very* well.

Freder, in your school of 12 merit scholars... how many students failed to graduate?

A huge school will have high level classes. My school had Trigonometry with 9 students when I took it and Physics offered every other year with 7 students when I took it.

But few students failed altogether and very few dropped out. There were not skate nazis to beat the sh*t out of skate posers. There were no metal detectors or cops in the parking lot after school.

What homeschooled students do, if they want to take Calculus or a college level class, (which are *absolutely* voluntary in public school and many many students in public school choose NOT to take), is they go to community college.

Community colleges everywhere I've heard about will take homeschooled high school students if they pass placement tests (not hard to do) before they "graduate" which lets homeschooled students get a jump on college credit as well.

We appear to be hopelessly off topic, but this is more fun anyway--Washington State had a program called running start which permitted high school kids to enroll in community college courses while they were still in high school. It was not unusual for highly motivated kids to graduate from high school with their AA degree as well.

and neither of those subjects preclude the teaching of calculus or other first year college types of courses that would normally be found in an advanced placement program at many public schools.

It must be amazing that there are all these parents out there qualified to teach calculus, college chemistry and biology (and have access to lab space and chemicals too!) and english too! Just freaking amazing! And they are stay at home moms and/or dads who can teach these subjects and maybe a foreign language or two.

I am freaking impressed!

Both you and Synova are full of "should's" and "seem's" but short on facts and hard numbers. Synova goes on to tell about the frustrated teachers and hippies who homeschool because the schools aren't "creative" enough. I thought that was exactly the problem, that we need to get back to basics.

Homeschooling may be fine for elementary subjects, but there are precious few parents equipped to teach a adequate college prep curriculum that prepares a student for the hard sciences.

It's not my fault that universities let liberal arts majors skate by with pathetic courses in both science and math.

If I were king no one would get a bachelors degree in this country without a full year of calculus (that's an 8 or 10 hour course most places) and a real hard science course (i.e., chemistry, physics, or biology) with a lab.

Advise and Consent was the first in a series of novels about Washington that are long out of print. But the author had a Senator or Governor called Ted Jason in the later books in the series. I seem remember he was based on Teddy Kennedy. The southern senator Seab Cooley was based on Sam Ervin who was hated by the liberal media until his dotage when he was the instrument used to destroy Nixon. Strange how things can turn around. One day Grand Kleage, next day liberal lion. Ain't it funny how time passes by.

Freder: I do agree with you that calculus should be a required course for any BA degree--But the rest of your post is mindless BS--Since you clearly don't know squat about home schooling except your own misguided opinions let me tell you how some people can manage to teach their children some basic elements of college prep courses:They use other people who have the appropriate expertise to either come in and do the teaching or they send their kids to the teachers home. You would find this commonly done as a cooperative and especially so around college campuses.You simply have no idea about some home schools work. Neither Synova nor I said all home schoolers are taught in this way--Some are--and thats one of the attractions of home school. Just because you apparently couldnt do it, it doesnt mean it can't be done.

What homeschooled students do, if they want to take Calculus or a college level class, (which are *absolutely* voluntary in public school and many many students in public school choose NOT to take), is they go to community college.

Neither Synova nor I said all home schoolers are taught in this way--Some are--and thats one of the attractions of home school. Just because you apparently couldnt do it, it doesnt mean it can't be done.

Well, give me some numbers. What percentage of homeschooled children go on to study the hard sciences or engineering in college? How does that percentage compare to traditionally educated children?

I'm just dying to know. Again, you're just telling me how things could or may work, not giving me any facts.

Synova's experience matches mine. A child can attend Community College (in some states) at 14, and so homeschooled kids can do their undergrad work by 16 or 17 and transferring as juniors to university at a time their peers are getting wasted in high school.

According to the self-professed "liberals" here, citizens cannot be trusted with their welfare, their health nor their children's education.

well Freder, Well, give me some numbers. What percentage of a high school freshman class go on to study the hard sciences or engineering in college? How does that percentage compare to homeschooled children?

I'm just dying to know. Again, you're just telling me how things could or may work, not giving me any facts.

I don't think anyone disputes that it's possible to get a good college-prep education in a homeschooling environment, or that homeschoolers, who, by definition have involved and interested parents, can do better academically than many public school students who lack that advantage. But homeschooling is practical for a very small portion of the population.

Also, many homeschool kids, in my experience, lack social skills and become quite frustrated when they realize they aren't quite as precious as mommy and daddy told them they were

well Freder, Well, give me some numbers. What percentage of a high school freshman class go on to study the hard sciences or engineering in college? How does that percentage compare to homeschooled children?

It was the supporters of homeschooling that first raised completely unsubstantiated statements about how homeschooling is superior to traditional schooling. Now that I have asked for proof (I will note that I am always accused of making unsupported claims but apparently I am the only poster here who must actually back up what I write) all I get is more assertions (and the rather bizaare position that attending community college is homeschooling) and no evidence.

When you provide the numbers I asked for I will dig around the internet for the numbers you want.

I will make a prediction though. The percentage of traditionally educated students who attend college and major in a hard science or engineering will be much higher than the percentage of homeschooled students majoring in hard sciences and engineering.

Agree entirely with Joshua--home schooling is a pedagogical option that should not be thrown out--and like other pedagogies it works for a certain type of person. And homeschooling, unless augmented with other social activities may deprive a child of that experience.

As to number of home schooled kids who go on and study hard sciences at the baccalaurate level, it simply isnt important to the issue. Its a a liberty thing for me and maximizes a parent's choice of pedagogies. I like to think of home schooling as an Evergreen or Reed college approach for youngsters. So Freder, if you want to find out how many homeschoolers go on in hard sciences, you should be able to google it. I don't give a damn because that is not even close to the basic issue for me.

So lets be fair, hm? If you don't need numbers then neither do I. You have your imagination and I have people I know, which isn't data either.

And I'm still curious how many school failures and drop-outs accompanied those 12 merit scholars.

Some things aren't numbers, though. Some things are History. What is is what is and your not knowing about it doesn't change that the genesis of homeschool had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism and everything to do with creativity.

The answer to creationism is private church affiliated schooling. Approved classroom lock-step style.

Homeschool is fundamentally about the freedom to learn, and secondarily about the content.

Raymond Moore is a hero to Christian homeschoolers but his research is primarily about child development and just how unnatural and outright harmful it is to set a small child in a chair and make them go to school earlier and earlier. John Holt is another and, like Moore, was publishing his ideas about education in the 1960's. He's more an icon of secular homeschooling because he promoted the concept of un-schooling.

I didn't pull nuts and tofu hippies out of my imagination.

The misconception that homeschool means that mom is the teacher is typical, if both tired and old.

Homeschooling makes heavy use of mentors and community resources. It always has. The idea that one person is adequate as a singular source of information is a relic of traditional classroom instruction. People who try to project this assumption onto home education make a mistake.

And I will stand by that assertion; on the average any individual not educated in apublic school is better edcuated than one who is.

Can you find a high school age home schooler who cannot do simple math? I have no doubt that you can.

But haven't a home schooled children won the National Spelling Bee for the last few years?

Just based on the numbers of children who start as Freshman at any punblic high school as compared to the number who actually graduate almost guarantees that there are a large percentage of public school students who are not educated at all.

Nearly 1 in 3 high school students in the Class of 2006 will not graduate this year, the Editorial Projects in Education (EDE) Research Center reported Tuesday. The picture is worse for urban school districts, especially those serving poor students, the new study shows. Graduation rates in the largest school districts range from 21.7 percent in Detroit and 38.5 percent in Maryland's Baltimore County to 82.5 percent in Virginia's Fairfax County. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p03s02-ussc.html

Freder: I think you inferred too much from what I said. And I think you don't understand my libertarian streak. In general students should study what they want in an academic program. My pedagogical preference would be a great books program with a heavy dose of math and hard science. But in this particular conflict my libertarian side wins out.

The reason why I think calculus (and DE) is so important is that it is basic to understanding our physical world. You cant use algebra to understand bodies in motion, and any physics course not based on calculus is bogus. I used to teach Public Administration and I required students in my program to take calculus as a program prerequisite. There are many quantitative solutions to public admin including particularly linear algebra. Which probably explains why my program ended up getting cut because I wasnt producing enough revenue.

When you provide the numbers I asked for I will dig around the internet for the numbers you want.

According to this Arizona State University study, homeschooled students scored substantially above average on the Iowa standardized skills test. This article from a homeschooling organization also contains citations of various studies showing that homeschooled students do better than public school students.

Your point about children homeschooled for religious reasons not learning anything about evolution is one that, at first, seems like it should be valid. But what you're forgetting is that public school students don't learn much of anything either. High school biology textbooks generally provide only the most general overview of the theory so as not to offend the local school boards in religiously conservative communities. On top of that, biology teachers seldom have degrees in biology -- they usually have a degree in "Education", which in theory qualifies them to teach but which doesn't impart any more knowledge of biology than the average college graduate would have.

According to this Arizona State University study, homeschooled students scored substantially above average on the Iowa standardized skills test.

Which are given for the last time in seventh or eighth grade. You will note above that I conceded the point of homeschooling elementary age children.

That many of our public schools could be better is not something you will ever hear me dispute. But there are public schools in this country that are the equal of the best private schools anywhere. Some of our public universities are still among the premier research universities in the world.

Public education made this country great. To forget that or to belittle public education, or claim it is hopeless and worthless, is an insult and frankly ignores history.

I don't think any one is belittling the concept of a public education; we are only bemoaning the fact that after the vast amount of tax dollars dumped into public schools, it is easier to get a quality education for your child by doing it yourself at home or paying for twice at a private school.

Freder, if your point is that quality in public schools varies and that some are very good... well, yeah.

But the same is true of homeschool so... your point?

BTW, conceding that homeschool works for elementary is something that'd I'd disagree with strongly. Students after that age are far *far* better able to take responsibility and control of their own educations and lives. Elementary ages are more dependent on parents. High School, less.

The goal, generally, is to produce a teen who no longer needs educational spoon-feeding. The resources available to students are limitless... those resources include community colleges where, as is normal in college, students are responsible for their own learning and have a measure of self-determination that is simply not allowed in public high schools.

Children do not develop at even roughly the same rates. The "right" age to learn to read may be five or it may be up to twelve. Neither the five year olds nor those ready to read at 12 are served well by public schools.

Some children do not learn well when made to sit. Some children do not learn well if other people are moving about.

A classroom is not natural. Sitting in rows and raising your hand and asking to pee does not encourage responsibility or individuality. Changing from one subject to another subject when told and being forced to abandon interests in favor of what someone else thinks you should know actively stifles curiosity or even develops outright aversion to anything resembling "school."

Last year he was a battered man. This year he looked comfortable. He's starting the home stretch. So he sees where his term ends and when some sanity returns to his personal life.

The speech is a nonevent because, really, all state of unions are. Its a Rod Sterling "Outer Limits" kind of theater. But he does have a year in office and a President has an enormous clout, especially in foreign affairs. And he has clearly shown he will "role the dice" and take serious gambles. I just have this sense he will take gambles, good or bad, right up till he turns over power. He will frame a significant part of election agenda. And because he and Cheney have nothing at stake in this election there is going to be a freedom of action we haven't experienced in several decades. Could make for some very interesting times.

Who's a fuzzy thinker? You slam homeschool and spout off the most tired of stereotypes yet *you* aren't on the hook for providing numbers?

Funny, that.

Some children who are not ready to read until 12 learn to read earlier but with incredible stress and most certainly the internalization of the idea that they are dumb. *Because* they are in a classroom with students who read at college levels at age 10. That the student could well go from reading almost not at all to reading college level in a couple of years (*language* is not delayed, after all) is destroyed by the preconceptions that learning happens a certain way on a certain schedule.

Because reading is like that. When it's *on* it's on. When it's not *on* it can be done but painfully and slowly and engendering true hatred for reading and for learning.

The slow-reading student never catches up but not because they can't. They don't catch up because of the environment they are forced to be in.

Which are given for the last time in seventh or eighth grade. You will note above that I conceded the point of homeschooling elementary age children.

So I take it you're conceding that homeschooling junior high age children is good, too? Because eighth grade isn't "elementary age" -- those kids are 14 years old. And the second link I provided, which you ignored, provided data indicating that homeschooled kids do better than the average public school kid in high school, too.

But there are public schools in this country that are the equal of the best private schools anywhere. Some of our public universities are still among the premier research universities in the world.

There are poor people who manage to become wealthy without government assistance, and old people who manage to save enough to retire in luxury. Does this mean that we should completely eliminate all welfare, social security and Medicare? After all, the "don't help anybody, ever" plan has *some* success stories...

Here's a more realistic view:

If you consider the goal of high school to be educating students in the basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and science -- i.e., the basic stuff you expect someone with a high school diploma to know -- then public high schools fail in their mission a third of the time.

But you, of course, have been using an even higher standard for homeschoolers -- namely, "do they prepare kids for college". If that's your standard then public high schools fail 68% of the time, because only 32% of public school graduates are adequately prepared for college. What's worse is that only a fraction of that 32% actually manages to achieve a college degree. In other words, Freder, public schools are an overwhelming failure at getting students into, and through, college.

Public education made this country great.

No, it didn't. People made this country great. Some of them were educated in the public schools; others weren't.

I would also point out that thinks like unrestricted private enterprise *also* made this country great, but last I checked you were still a Democrat.

I'm also curious that you're an expert on what is homeschooling and what is not.

Nothing about homeschooling *ever* demanded that information and instruction came only from parents. In fact, it was more common to term parents as facilitators and not teachers at all. A homeschool parent does not do what teachers do. The process isn't, and *shouldn't* be, a home version of what happens in a school classroom.

The larger point here is that whether a kid is taught entirely at home, or taught at home and then sent to tutors (or local community colleges) for specific subjects, the public K-12 educational system isn't involved in the process. In other words, even if any given parent cannot personally teach his or her child everything that child needs to know, it does not follow that enrolling the kid in a public school is a good idea. There are other alternatives, most of them better (and cheaper, for that matter).